User talk:Doc James/Archive 28

Achilles tendonitis article.
I have been trying in good faith to clean up the footnote mess in the achilles tendonitis article. Rather than add citation needed boxes where you think better citations are needed, you are willy nilly deleting my mechanical fixes to the silly hard-coded (and sometimes wrong) footnotes.

You are also inserting your POV of the validity of some treatments.

Please stop deleting content, and add "citation needed" boxes where you feel more support is necessary. If you don't know what that means, look it up.

And... since when is Pubmed not accepted as a source????? 173.206.177.118 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you but can you please specify something?
Thank you for leaving a message on my userpage about the need to use high-quality sources such as textbooks when editing articles. Can you please be specific about telling which article you had in mind which I had edited? Looking at my contributions, I presume it was the one on the health benefits of tea. However, I might be wrong! You can leave message on my userpage telling me the article (or articles) which you had in mind. Thank you again for contacting me, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Diabetes
Hi Doc. I see you will be away for the next few weeks and unable to work on the article. Seeing as it has already been a month I am thinking it would be better to fail the article. Hopefully there is some good feedback in the review, has left some good comments. I don't know what I will be doing in a month, so may not have as much time to devote to a review as I do now. I will most certainly be around though and can give feedback if required. In any case medicine articles seem to get picked up quite quickly and if you give me a ping on my talk page when you are back and have made some improvements to the article I will be willing to conduct the second review if I can fit it in. AIR corn (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. While let you know when I have made the improvements you have suggested. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

My Ex Link at Poliomyelitis
Dear Jim, I was not for sure about whether the ex link was needed or proper. So I just posted anyway and let those working on that page make the cut. I got my answer. Thanks for reviewing it and making the call. That is why Wiki works so well. And you all have done a great job on that page. Hopefully if the fanatic (anti-immunization shots Mom's in the US and religious fanatics in Africa) we will not have to be adding a lot more sad news to that page. I was part of the first generation to get the Salks polio shot (mine was in 1955) and my Mom was always telling how scared she was in the Summer for me and my brother and checking our little legs and rubbing them -- ie their mothers said it would help prevent polio. There was one small city in south-western Virginia that had the polio out break so bad that cars would drive around it and it was hard to get food and fuel delivery. Today in my area we have a bunch of anti-shots Moms and the state is worried sick about the Measles and a huge outbreak (13 so far). How people forget with out wards of children in iron lungs. Again, thanks. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for contributing. The war on polio is definitely interesting. Our page on the subject well extensive I am sure could use more love Poliomyelitis eradication :-) -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear James, Are you stating that, that 1954 PM link may be of interest on the Poliomyelitis eradication page? Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I always feel it is best to improve the text here and use sources as references rather than as external links... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent WP:MEDRS change
Hello, I made a comment on a month old discussion which you may not have noticed. It concerns the guidelines which now strongly imply that tertiary sources cannot be used to determine balance/due weight. I'd appreciate you taking a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindjuicer (talk • contribs) 18:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not have any strong feelings on tertiary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

When did you get the new title?
I always thought you were User: Doc James - how long have you had this new title? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My account has always been Jmh649. My signature is however Doc James. Yes I know a little confusing.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Abortion article titles notification
Hey Jmh649. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  23:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Your RfA and potentially other experiences are being discussed
On Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal/Proposed_decision. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks but no longer follow this topic. Cheers -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Doc James Project 456-Alpha (D) (6) (iii) Subpart 3
Hey James:

Somehow I ended up at your old RFA page, and between bursts of laughter at some of the idiocy there, I noticed you said you had "[arranged] the acquisition of a few hundred high quality images of rare medical conditions".

I am currently in the process of making the giant cell carcinoma of the lung article the best single article on Wikipedia by far, and the above statement made me wonder if you could find a suitable pic for it ... as soon as you finish up Project 456-Alpha (D) (6) (iii) Subpart 2, of course, and otherwise at your convenience.

Hoping the lions are not busily feeding on your carcass, I remain

Your friend and fan: Cliff (a/k/a &#34;Uploadvirus&#34;) (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I will see what I can do when I get home.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

ref
"Please use review articles." -- what does that mean? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We use review articles rather than primary research article as references on Wikipedia per WP:MEDRS -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Query
Why did you revert me here? Everything was properly linked. --Elonka 17:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (TPS) As the author of several lists of notable cases, perhaps I can help. Lists on Wikipedia have the same sourcing requirement as any text. Wikipedia is not a reliable source so wikilinks are not substitute for inline citations where they are required by WP:V. Each article must stand alone wrt sourcing. Saying that somebody (particularly if living) had a serious disease certainly requires a source. Please read WP:MEDMOS. Not all editors appreciate such lists in medical articles, because they can be viewed as trivia within a serious subject. A compromise position is to only include cases where the person has made a lasting impression wrt the condition, and for that prose may be better than a bare list (which tends to accumulate random additions). Standalone lists of notable cases are common and several are featured lists. Colin°Talk 20:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the WP:MEDMOS link, that's helpful (and would have been useful as an edit summary). I'll adapt the list accordingly. Jmh649, I have also started a section at the talkpage of the article, please don't revert again without engaging in discussion, thanks. --Elonka 21:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You have provided refs thus I have less concerns. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Vitamin D
Hi

I had re-arranged the article to carefully separate out Vitamin D's role and use as a plain old vitamin (something you need in your diet or else you get a deficiency disease), on the one hand, from -- on the other hand, research into vitamin D's possible roles in other conditions and its use as a dietary supplement that people might take to promote wellness. There is an entire area that is left out of the article, namely development of Vitamin D derivatives by pharma companies and their potential uses as drugs which relates to the medical uses.

But your recent changes basically reverted my changes, lumping back together the clear role of vitamin D to prevent rickets/ osteomalacia and the speculative other purposes. You made this change with no comment. I would like to discuss! Hopefully you are open to discussing rather than just engaging in an edit war.

If you are willing, shall we discuss here, or in the article's talk page? Jytdog (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I am of course open to discussion. Let do it on the vit D talk page. I am away however for the next week. My changes are based on the WP:MEDMOS guideline.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! I responded.  Hopefully this will be a great discussion! Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * test. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

African evidence
I disagree with your interpretation at Talk:Circumcision, as explained there, but I've suggested "strong evidence from Africa indicates that..." in the hope that this might be a reasonable compromise. Jakew (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Osteoarthritis left knee.jpg
Is this an X-Ray or a CAT Scan? 204.54.36.245 (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Eager patient
 * X ray.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

My edits were deleted
Hi James, I'd like to talk with you about the some of the edits I made and why. Seems they were swiftly erased without much consideration. I had very sound reasons for improving upon the content in the way that I did. Please e-mail me any queries you may have about it. The way Wikipedia works is that anyone id allowed to contribute to an entry. Thanks, Heather — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopefairy (talk • contribs) 02:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a couple of things. 1) We have a guideline here WP:MEDRS which states what sort of references should be used. 2) We also write in an encyclopedic tone rather than an instructional tone. Cheers -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Refs
Um, not, that's not how it works. The way works is, when you add material to an article, it has to be sourced. You don't add unsourced material to articles, or expect others to fact tag it or find sources for it. You want to add the material, then you source it. I don't know what article your message was in reference to, but I'm not going to comment out citation tags, as the issue is one of Verifiability, not aesthetics. Nightscream (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was asking that you not remove citations as per her . Thanks -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Citations are not needed for each individual sentence. When one source supports consecutive sentences in the same pargraph, then one citation of it at the end of the final one is sufficient. No reasonable editor would ever fact tag a sentence when a source is right there at the end of the final one. If they do, you revert them for this reason, and you may feel free to contact me if they persist. A cite for each sentence is overkill. See WP:OVERCITE, in particular the section called "Needless repetition of citations". Nightscream (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * When I move text around, I make sure to move the cite with the appropriate text. Nightscream (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Translation project
Thanks for your kind message. I will have a look at the articles you mention and see what I can do. Adh (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Anxiety
How does it not work? JMiall  ₰  13:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The thumb nail dose not show up. I do not know if it is because it is a tiff file or there is an issue on Wikipedia. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

have you noticed this - it seems to mention you
e.g. "There's a guy handing out this paper at UCLA. Says he’s seeking help to expose and ban a “Steward”, “Administrators”, and other editors with severe conflicts of interest in Wikipedia. He showed me a long list of topics where editors have removed information to protect religiosity and profits, like Circumcision. Most of the other topics were doctor propaganda, most made POV by an editor called Jmh649. For example,he suggested I see history to at Jmh649 edits in colonoscopy as it relates to sigmoidoscopy being safer, cheaper, and as effective in reducing the colon cancer per some JAMA article." I don't know what is going on here, but hopefully it will have no effect on you. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks appears to be this angry user and sock here Sockpuppet_investigations/Zinbarg/Archive -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * She moved her essay to the mainspace and I G10ed it. cheers -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

DRN thread
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Circumcision". Thank you. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Benzodiazepines
Examples: Alprazolam, Nitrazepam = blocked User:Thegoodson also editing as User:Sebastian80 and User:VeronicaPR now editing as IP and introducing edits in all benzodiazepines from a 1988 ref, which was targeted to lay audience. Introduces misrepresentations of ref, like before, which was reason for blocking him to begin with. Was a source of dozens of misrepresentations of references and hard to spot systematic forgeries in benzo articles. Fanatic. Again changes dates and numbers to values unsupported by reference, see Secobarbital date changed from 1934 to 1936, patent granted 1934. Vandalism. Introduces hard to spot deliberate factual errors. 70.137.157.88 (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a newer ref that supports the content in question? I agree that 1988 is a little old. Thanks for keeping an eye on these pages. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I am tired of issues like changed numbers and values. This guy changes things to what the ref does not say. He is blocked for that kind of vandalism but continues like a bot. Previously took many hours to weed that out. Not again. I am tired. It became a sociological experiment, proving that you either have to accept the steady nonsense or have to resort to draconic admnistrative measures, turning it into WikiKZ. Both not good. Hopefully they do not invent the Wiki-Hospital one day, where e.g. the janitor opens the chest and massages the heart with a toilet plunger etc. (Not my idea, it is by William Burroughs) Urghhh. 70.137.157.88 (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Other collaborative open projects, like software, have been more successful in this respect, but then access did not include everybody, and the reqd programming skills were an initial hurdle deterring the complete duds and the jokers and dumb kids etc. 70.137.157.88 (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Other articles, like about transistors or algorithms or flowers or bacteria are not touched by this, only everything the kids throw in to get wasted. 70.137.157.88 (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am unable to verify the text in question for this IP as I do not have access to the source in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Doc, see my user page, where this IP editor also placed a note. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following this up. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

PANDAS query
Hey, doc ... on this edit, I had intentionally followed some of the sources' wording in using Identification and Evaluation rather than MEDMOS's "Diagnosis". Diagnosis would apply to recognized, well .. diagnoses. Since PANDAS isn't a DSM or ICD diagnosis, it can't really be "diagnosed" can it? I'd appreciate your thoughts on that. Anyway, I'm working now in sandbox at User:SandyGeorgia/PANDAS sandbox, source list at User:SandyGeorgia/PANDAS notes and status update here; I think when dealing with "true believers" on controversial topics, working in sandbox may be the only way to advance. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Why did User:Beejaypii leave?
He concluded that the impudence from the pro-circs could only occur if they had the support of "the Prince of Wales," aka, the Great White Whale of Wikipedia. It'll never change -- the Prince is pro-circ. Cheers 85.159.201.78 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist
I have removed about 1000-2000 articles from my watchlist to concentrate more fully on the effort to improve these core medical topics here Book:Health care. Put my previous list here User:Jmh649/Watchlist. Many received a fair bit of vandalism. Not sure if others would be interested in keeping an eye on them... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

 * Thanks. Will try to make some improvements over the next few years.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikivoyage

 * Thanks -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome.
I can translate from Japanese to English... but other way is a little hard for me... --Zaurus (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Im from Russian Wikiproject Medicine. My English is intermediate level, but I can help in adapting already translated articles. Primarily interested in articles on emergency medicine--Meddoc13 (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Marathi Wikipedia medicine project
Thanks Doc James

We have recently started medicine project on Marathi wikipedia. There are few professional doctors are also actively involved in it. Currently we are developing batch of 15 articles and targeting to create 100 articles in phase one. Thanks for your support. - Rahuldeshmukh101 (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikinews links
Thanks Who is "we" in your message? Why wouldn't you include germane Wikinews links? I provided a relevant link to a section and you have taken it out pointing to the sister links at the bottom, but that leads to a redlink on en.wikinews... How is this more helpful to the reader? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay You didn't answer any of my questions and the only reference that I see in WP:MEDMOS about links to other Wikimedia projects encourages them... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

When do you think "pending changes" will be added to this site
When do you think "pending changes" will be added to this site? an do you need a certain number of votes to get it passed?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is being discussed here Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012 and requires 2/3 support.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Herpes simplex review article biased
Thank you for your feedback. I am well aware of the policy on secondary sources. However, I have not found good quality secondary sources discussing natural medicines for herpes simplex. Therefore it seems more appropriate to include the primary references until and unless someone publishes an unbiased/neutral review of the literature. Additionally, the secondary reference currently cited in the article does not address some agents for which there is positive evidence, so it is left out currently. What is your suggestion on how I or anyone should revise the herpes simplex article given this situation? If you are aware of better quality, neutral secondary references on natural treatments for herpes simplex I would be happy to be made aware of them. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Yarnell (talk • contribs) 06:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If secondary sources do not exist than we typically do not mention it as this typically means the subjects is not significant enough.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Your idea for a Wikipedia-related journal
Hello Doc. I happened to see your mention of this journal proposal show up on my watchlist. Just in case you missed it, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computational Biology. It might encourage them if regular WP editors would show up to help review the article at Circular permutation in proteins, which has come out of a peer-reviewed process and is intended to be suitable for Wikipedia. Of course I am going to go there myself to help out soon. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Am in discussion with PLoS regarding joining this project. With respect to protein folding, not really my area of expertise. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Dermatophytosis revision required
Hi, You seem to have protected the Dermatophytosis page, so I'm asking you to take a look at a minor revision:

The Classification section refers to "Tinea versicolor caused by Malassezia furfur", however, the article on Tinea versicolor says that recent research has identified Malassezia globosa as a more prevalent cause of this condition.

Thanks in advance.

Dave Morgan, DO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.90.45 (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure do we have a ref that supports this? -- Doc James (talk • contribs • email) 23:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Slight rewind...

Having dug into this slightly deeper, the articles cited in the Pityriasis Versicolor article are:

2.^ a b Morishita N; Sei Y. Microreview of Pityriasis versicolor and Malassezia species. Mycopathologia. 2006 Dec;162(6):373-6 3.^ Prohic A; Ozegovic L. Malassezia species isolated from lesional and non-lesional skin in patients with pityriasis versicolor. Mycoses. 2007 Jan;50(1):58-63.

These refer to the middle east geographical area (Iran) and also contain reference to erroneous clinical dx of around 30% in the study sample. Also I don't see any great statistical difference in the studies to support the text in the wiki on PV. A more recent study from South America (Petry V, et al, 2011 Aug, Identification of Malassezia yeast species isolated from patients with pityriasis versicolor. An Bras Dermatol. 2011 Aug;86(4):803-6) Suggest M. sympodialis as a more prevalent agent. I suspect (although I can't find any study), that there'll be a geographical and possibly other epidemiological factors, such as diet - some spp. appear to be more lipophilic than others, that play a role in which agent is the most prevalent in particular communities.

I'd like to link into the PV article and get the author to re-evaluate the text and revise with a more cautious reference to these articles. Then maybe agree to have the Dermatophytosis and PV article make a more general ref to Malassezia and various spp. As ref to one sp. as more prevalent than any other appears to be unreliable at present. What do you think?

Regards,

Dave
 * Here on Wikipedia we typically use review articles per WP:MEDRS. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Immunology
I see you have edited some of the pages within the scope of immunology. Please have a look at the proposal for a WikiProject Immunology WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Immunology and give your opinion (support or oppose). Thank you for your attention.  Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 09:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. When you recently edited Diabetes mellitus type 2, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cells and Fatigue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

golf war syndrome in children
my 3 childrens father was in the golf war RNMCB24   and all 3 of my kids have the symtoms 2 in wich just have a few and my oldest has almost all the symptoms  id appreciate a reply back on a dr referal in usa and if u would please email me so i can have more details about the golf war syndrome at cashabaker@yahoo.com  thank u and may god bless u and ur studies  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.67.91 (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry we at Wikipedia do not provide this sort of advice. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello James
Hi James, I am showing a new person how to use Wikipedia. This will be our example of how to leave a message on a person's talk page. Her account is User:lancelot09. She is a francophone so you can contact her in French.Alan.ca (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Diabetes mellitus type 2
Hi

thanks for your message. I have gone through the Diabetes mellitus type 2 article and I think it looks good. I have made some changes as I went through, nothing too major I hope, I think you have dealt with the points I raised originally and I would be happy to support it as a good article. Adh (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the improvements and support. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Me too. Passed. Congrats. AIR corn (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on edit
I appreciate the comment that came along with the revert. What I'm having trouble understanding, is what exactly is wrong with my edit. Is the quality of the article I cited poor, or not reliable? I'm new to this field, and I'm not quite sure what's considered high quality. If you could briefly explain why it's not a reliable source, I'll try to do better next time! Thank you! Zeteg (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, could you please check my edit to make sure I'm following wiki rules? I believe I've found a secondary reference this time! Thank you. Zeteg (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

vitamin D
Am writing to you instead of going into an edit war.

I changed the vitamin D article to read Low levels of Vitamin D appears to be a risk factor for [[multiple sclerosis] And provided a reason: Changed this to say that low levels are a risk factor, which is what the cited articles say, and which is quite different from saying that taking supplements appears to be protective.)

You reverted and said ""Overall, the results of these studies support a protective effect of vitamin D""

This is not accurate b/c it is half true. The first ref states ". Overall, the results of these studies support a protective effect of vitamin D, but there are uncertainties and many unanswered questions, including how vitamin D exerts a protective effect, how genetic variations modify the effect, and whether vitamin D can influence the course of MS progression." The article itself (I can send it to you) states as a fact that low vitamin D is a risk factor; the rest of it describes the evidence and ends up at the position stated.

The second ref is all about risk factor. Not "protective".

The third citation: The incrimination of hypovitaminosis D as a risk factor is a reasonable assumption when several different research approaches used in a given pathology have consistently concluded that vitamin D is likely involved in that pathology. In multiple sclerosis, taken here as a prime example, there is a substantial rationale for vitamin D involvement, based on the findings of different experimental, epidemiological, genetic and immunological studies. Possible curative effects of vitamin D, in addition to a preventive action, are currently being tested but have not yet been demonstrated in most pathologies. However, these two questions appear to be clearly distinct and may involve notably different mechanisms.

So you push the evidence way too hard. Risk factor is well accepted; prevention is ~possible~. I would support something like this: "Low levels of Vitamin D appears to be a risk factor for [[multiple sclerosis]. Supplementation with Vitamin D may prevent MS but there are uncertainties and unanswered questions. "

But the current statement cannot stand... Jytdog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Sure sounds reasonable. And have changed with slight modification. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Dengue
10.1056/NEJMra1110265 is out. I will be using it hopefully to update the article within the next few days. JFW &#124; T@lk  00:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Cardiac Arrest Revision
Hello,

I saw you reverted my edit on the cardiac arrest article. I am new to wikipedia and was wondering if you could tell me why.

thank you Kyryx (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the reason I made that edit is because as a prehospital care provider who does intubate cardiac arrest patients, I think it needs to be clear that more research needs to be done in this area. The article cited states "Further comparative research should assess the potential causes of the demonstrated associations." My personal belief is to some extent, patients with more easily reversible rhythms (eg simple vfib), see a return of ROSC before they can be tubed. It is the patients who have much less survivable rhythms (eg asystole) who end up getting tubes. Additionally, the level of training needs to be taken into account before making a blanket statement against prehospital intubation. For example, a EMT-I (sorry don't know the equivalent in Canada), may not be as proficient as say an experienced flight medic.

I simply think the article should either explain that research has shown a decreased survival rate with intubation, but that intubation may or may not be the cause of the decreased survivability. Or, that entire sentence should be removed as it doesn't really fit under the section of "Cardiopulmonary resuscitation". Perhaps a new section should be added to address cardiac arrest in the prehospital setting.

Kyryx (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed it from "cause" to associated with. More research is need for nearly everything and if we followed every sentence with "more research is needed" things would get silly.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

But surely you agree that the efficacy of interventions preformed during a cardiac arrest are exceptionally difficult to assess? I think it is important to make the distinction that although many ACLS interventions don't have proven efficacy, they at least aren't proven to be useless or harmful. And if they are, they are removed (eg. atropine). But either way, I added a prehospital care section. Kyryx (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is some evidence that epinephrine might be harmful. If the intervention only increases admission to hospital but does not increase survival to discharge I would characterize that as financially harmful. There is good evidence that ACLS does not improve survival in cardiac arrest over BLS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)